The debate surrounding Heidi Mendoza goes beyond a single candidate or a specific issue.
Former government auditor Heidi Mendoza, who is running for the Senate, last week found herself bashed and canceled because she said she did not support same-sex marriage.
To be sure, Mendoza’s survey rankings are nowhere near the numbers of the frontrunners in the race. Those belonging to the Magic 12, based on recent polls, are incumbents or wildly popular personalities. Truth be told, the list of “winnables” occasions despair.
Mendoza started her career as an auditing aide, and then spent years looking at how government agencies and local government units across the country spent public funds. She first tasted public attention as a whistleblower in a corruption scandal in the military. She left the commission, did some consulting, and returned to the COA when appointed commissioner by the late President Benigno Aquino III. In 2015, she left the Philippines to serve as Undersecretary General of the Internal Oversight Services of the United Nations.
(Disclosure: I worked with an NGO that helped the COA institute citizen participatory audit and got to know Mendoza there. I helped with her memoirs, “Audit is Life,” where I was credited as editor.)
“Suntok sa buwan” was how Mendoza described her decision to run for the Senate. She recognized she was out of the winning circle. Still, she showed up for debates and emphasized the importance of holding our officials accountable for the money entrusted to their discretion.
These efforts seem to have paid off, albeit marginally. Pulse Asia has released three senatorial preference surveys in the past few months: in the survey conducted from November 26-December 3, 2025, she was ranked 31-56 (9% of respondents are aware of her, 1% are voting for her). In January, ranking improved to 29-48 (13% aware and 1.7% voting for). In February, she was ranked 29-40 (22% aware and 2.0% voting for).
Meanwhile, Social Weather Stations surveys conducted in the past months saw Mendoza’s rank moving from 28-39 (2% in December 2024), 27-34 (3% in January 2025), 26-30 (4% in January), to 28-29 (5% in March).
***
It in these debates where she displays mastery of anti-corruption measures that put some of her bumbling, bluffing competitors to shame. The woman knows what she is talking about and we need someone like her in the Senate. But it was also in these debates that her position on same-sex marriage was brought to fore. (In another media interview, she also said she was against divorce because she was a Catholic – but this is another discussion altogether.)
Many members of the LGBTQIA+ community were dismayed at Mendoza’s position. She did not recognize their struggles, they said. She gave the impression that the fight against corruption was more important than the fight against inequality and discrimination.
And since the community made up a significant part of the country’s voting population, the loss of their support now threatens to erode whatever marginal progress Mendoza may have gained.
In response, she gave a statement on social media to the LGBTQIA+ community. She thanked them for their courage in fighting for rights despite being hurt, left behind, or silenced. She acknowledged the dismay and hurt her position had caused.
“I will not pretend to have all the answers or to change overnight,” she wrote. And then she outlined several commitments: to not stand in the way of the enactment of same-sex unions, to deepen her study and understanding of inclusive policy-making, to ensure that LGBTQIA+ voices are not only heard but empowered in spaces where decisions are made, to actively collaborate with LGBTQIA+ organizations and human rights defenders, ans to remain relentless in fighting corruption.
***
When you are courting the public vote, it is tempting to package yourself as someone who knows it all, who is sympathetic to all causes, and an ally to the marginalized. It could be convenient to bend your personal opinion or to simply hide them if they had the potential of causing backlash. Admitting you don’t know enough, or coming forward with your beliefs that may not align with the beliefs of others, could be risky.
Some voters decided that Mendoza’s position was a deal breaker. Others said it was something they could live with given her proven competence and potential legislative contribution to transparency and accountability. Yet others continue to have reservations even as they agree she deserves a chance.
Mendoza has my vote. I would not immediately discard someone just because her views on specific issues differ from mine. This is what debate and discourse in a democracy are all about – so long as our positions are founded on careful thought, not pulled out of thin air or imposed on or fed to us by anybody. So long as we acknowledge we could be wrong. So long as we acknowledge that our beliefs have strengths and weaknesses, and we are willing to listen. It would be a dangerous world if all people thought alike and agreed with everybody, or if we become so smug with the correctness of our own convictions or the extent of our knowledge that we tune out everything else.
But that is me. I can understand why others would lose faith. It is in the spirit of respect and humanity that we should acknowledge that people have different sets of negotiables and non-negotiables, provided these do not go beyond reason (for instance, extrajudicial killings in the name of peace and order).
Ultimately, this is not about a single senatorial candidate or even a specific issue. It is about elevating the quality of our decision-making process. Voters making an effort to know what candidates actually stand for, and why, is a definite improvement over voting from name recall. It is always good to recognize that we can’t all subscribe to the same ideologies but that we have to create and maintain spaces in which we can keep talking, and keep working together.
Even as we are imperfect citizens, public servants, and human beings, it is our duty to constantly work to know better so we can do better.
adellechua@gmail.com